Correct. Read reply to above comment.
Correct. Read reply to above comment.
You're completely right and I read it awfully wrong on the article. The legal limit around here (Portugal) is indeed 0.05% (the separator we actually use being comma, not a dot, but that's another story).
We have 2 other levels at 0.08% (increased penalty), and 0.012%, at which point it becomes an actual crime just to drive at these levels, sans accidents in the mix (it can still be a crime, even below 0.05%, if there's an accident where liability is assessed from DUI).
I was induced to error by the fact the breathalyzers around here apparently show the per thousand (they actually show grams per kilogram, which is mathematically the same), so the 3 times I was tested I saw values on the 0.0x scale (I don't drink and drive). That last threshold here in my country would show as "1.20" on the display, and that's also what they use for news headlines (e.g. "guy caught with record 12.3 blood-alcohol level" - this actually happened and they had to take a blood sample to confirm the value, since the breathalyzer didn't support those units).
And of course, that changes the whole point of my question: the father certainly doesn't have a clue to blame it on the car. Nobody would deem the least safe to drive a tricycle at 0.21% (or 2.1), let alone a Model S.
Just getting a pulse of what the
Blood-alcohol level aside (0.21, despite being illegal, is nothing in most scenarios; in my country the legal limit is 0.5, and I personally don't feel anything at or around that value), but what do you all think can really trigger statements from parents of the deceased in this scenario: Do you believe it's real grief? Do you think he's looking for monetary compensation from Tesla? Do you think his statement is logic-based and he actually believes the acceleration had direct influence on the accident (and he might be seeking for Tesla to implement real safeguards to that problem)? Or do you think this might have a finger or two from the gas-guzzling auto-industry?
You kinda answered my question and you have a point.
Thing is, to me, adverts on Android apps that don't require an internet connection are a moot point, as I just block them with NetGuard (a non-root FOSS firewall for Android). All ads they can try and throw at me are the static, no-video, no-sound, and most of all, (low) no-revenue variety since either Google Play Services doesn't detect them or detects them but pays less for static ads.
And while I could be biased for-ads by being an Android developer, I consider ad-based monetization schemes unethical. Yet I like their existence because it keeps apps I like free while being easily ad-blockable.
Did I miss something? What do they mean by Angry Birds as part of "threats that change all the time"? What's the big difference in playing the game on a personal device vs a company phone? I can think of a gazillion more meaningful ways they could be protecting against actual data-leak/money-costing problems, you know, unlike Angry fuckin' Birds
well, it's a buzzword I learned in college. Sorry if I hurt your self-taught, buzz-immune feelings.
On team development, it's pretty straight forward, although requires 2 agile tools: daily meetings && code reviews. Even if not using full-fledged Scrum, daily meetings (or at the very least, every other day; weekly defeats the purpose) are essential both to enforcing lazy/demotivated coders to code, and to keep everyone "up to speed" on each devs, well, speed (velocity). Some will argue there are devs that can mask it out pretty well on dailies, but in the long run, it's impossible not to notice when a dev is boasting of things he didn't/won't do, and in that moment, he either self-corrects (he also notices when he gets caught), or he needs punitive action (harsh, but true). Code-review is just a natural iteration to what dailies provide - you complement the generalized opinion with his code - if it was made for general scenarios and considers plausible edge cases (as opposed to solving it for a specific edge-case, which is usually the highest indicator of a bad dev) and the quality of the code overall, although this last part is highly subjective and that's why code review needs to rotate around so a collective opinion around each dev is maintained.
Now, checking stuff like one-man army freelancers, that's a lot harder. There's no other dev to compare, no other dev to supervise. It's like going out for a meal: you can't really look in the kitchen, you get the dish and that's what you can evaluate. Arguably some might have found better tools for assessing small or single-people projects, but it's just hard. The only thing I can say is: as soon as you get 2 devs that don't happen to be biased (e.g. best friends, family), it is much easier to assess each other's value in the project.
On the article itself I have to say: LOCs are plain stupid. Some devs don't even write a LOC all week, yet they are more valuable than others that write LOCs efficiently, but simply work on less important features. A "build master" (or whatever u call the guy handling build automation these days) can be months without writting a LOC, yet he's no sysadmin: he finds bugs, he points other devs to code-parts of bugs. He gets to find failing test problems, regression issues among others before it even gets to QA. But that's just an example. Who has never solved a critical issue 3 other competent people had checked with a one-liner (or even a "one-character"). Sometimes luck is part of the job, other times yu simply are the guy who had the correct line of thought to approach the thing. LOCs are irrelevant in most "valuable" scenarios these days, especially in app maintenance, which is 80% of the industry cost.
And of course the fact he is a highly rated actor on both TV and film. He has been pivotal in BSG, Miami Vice, main villain role in a Dexter season (arguably not the best one but still), and he has a secondary, yet very relevant appearance in cult classic Blade Runner. It's only not obvious for people who can't catch actor names (as I once admittedly was), or those without the taste both for having watched those classics and not noticing EJO's notoriously sharp performances in all of them..
obviously because of 2 reasons:
Reason 1: his name was the very first to appear in every episode opening credits (of the reimagined show obviously), which I am proud to admit I have watched 4 times now (at 74 episodes per rerun, that's ~300 times I've read his name);
Reason 2: slashdot comment titles length cap. Duh
By 2 years at that.
As someone said here, very sad to see another great personality part due to pancreatic cancer. From my standpoint, as a fan, I believe he had a successful artistic life where he displayed great ability performing multiple types (his villain comeback is proof). He did look (in the BSG shows, where I happened to see him perform) like he loved what he did for a living, and his mojo was notoriously contagious on stage. It even surpassed the fourth wall as I really did feel his character emotion in his most stressful or flamboyant moments, both as Cpt. Apollo and Tom Zarek.
I hope his personal life was as filled with bliss as his professional one, and if they happen to be reading: my most sincere condolences to family and friends.
Wherever you are Richard, you have reason to be proud.
"Long time Apple commentator Rene Ritchie writes:
I'll have to be blunt, but I'm guessing the reality distortion field didn't quite die with it's creator. The fact that Apple has more revenue than competition, as it happens with the iPhone, doesn't mean there is a market or that the market is profitable (it might for the iPhone, and probably also for the iPad, but definitely not for any smartwatch, including the iWatch). In the case of the iPhone, it's factual they sell less units, and it's not exactly sure it makes more total profit than the top Android maker.
There is no smartphone market. Not a significant one. There isn't one for VR either, there wasn't one for 3D TV. There wasn't a market for the Wii U. Companies try to "make the market" by shipping less units and throw around empty, inflating assertions such as "demand so strong that we couldn't make enough". That's what Nintendo did. It didn't save the Wii U, but like Apple, Nintendo has other ways to make money they can throw in the R+D bin on stuff like niche watches.
You don't answer questions with questions. Leave that to Trump, Hillary and whatever candidates want to steer public opinion in a structuraly charismatic debate that wants to sway votes sans logic in the mix.
As for why does the press does what it does when democrats lose the upper hand - and in your own question for question logic - why does social media care to share fake news and disproportionate assertions about immigrants or misinformation about global warming? Because it's just that easy to turn a stupid idea into a popular one by just having an all-caps headline and a fearsome photo to accompany it.
Here, in a "highly-engineering" biased comments section, I'd rather have logic, common sense and real argumentation. Not a question for question dialogue. I I want that I'll just turn on C-SPAN, CNN, FOX News or whatever.
Very nice info, many thanks.
Very thorough timeline, and a tormenting conclusion.
But as a common citizen, I try not to dwell too much ins conspiracy theories - my mind, by my own decision (I believe) has to focus on the small tasks and interactions that actually affect and can be affected by me, and my mind has to take (false?) comfort there's someone else "above" me, directing, ruling my country in ways that cannot be that bad, as in effect I live in a world I somewhat consider safe.
Nevertheless, when I tackle this "basic rights and basic principles of society", I try to be structural and fundamentally assertive - just like a constitution, a declaration of rights, or any other structural law. It is essential that basic law is simple, so that it both can be understood the meaning of its existence, and it cannot be misinterpreted.
So pardon me if I am not as shaken by all the facts you present - I'm just not "wired" to do that. Obama was an overall decent president, and whatever national-security loss-of-rights that came while he was in power is a result of all the conjuncture from the 1940's until today, and most specially the consequence of 9/11 and of Bush's administration, not only Obama's. I believe if I constantly thought of fearful things as what you present, I would have to reorient my personal and professional life. The sense of insecurity would take over and I couldn't act as a normal human being that has to, for instance, do the most basic human things like have a "wille zur macht", or become a father, raise my children, and keep the flow of natural selection. Not all of us can be an MLK or an Elon Musk (they did, however, become successful in many fronts while not forfeiting their humanity, but they were/are exceptional human beings) - if we have no achievable, cohesive purpose, we basically turn ourselves meaningless and miserable. There is nothing to achieve by being a conspirationist.
They really should (trump national security). But gvnm't plays the catch-22 game rather easily with the "your freedom is messing with my freedom" argument. They basically turn "national security" into ALL 'MURICAN RIGHTS, like sand in the eyes of those that can't grasp 99% of the times, only one side's rights are actually being taken away.
"Engineering meets art in the parking lot and things explode." -- Garry Peterson, about Survival Research Labs